Raman Spectroscopic Study of the Molybdate Mineral<i>Szenicsite</i>and Comparison with Other Paragenetically Related Molybdate Minerals
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The molybdate‐bearing mineral szenicsite, Cu3(MoO4)(OH)4, has been studied by Raman and infrared spectroscopy. A comparison of the Raman spectra is made with those of the closely related molybdate‐bearing minerals, wulfenite, powellite, lindgrenite, and iriginite, which show common paragenesis. The Raman spectrum of szenicsite displays an intense, sharp band at 898 cm−1, attributed to the ν1 symmetric stretching vibration of the MoO4 units. The position of this particular band may be compared with the values of 871 cm−1 for wulfenite and scheelite and 879 cm−1 for powellite. Two Raman bands are observed at 827 and 801 cm−1 for szenicsite, which are assigned to the ν3(E g ) vibrational mode of the molybdate anion. The two MO4 ν2 modes are observed at 349 (B g ) and 308 cm−1 (A g ). The Raman band at 408 cm−1 for szenicsite is assigned to the ν4(E g ) band. The Raman spectra are assigned according to a factor group analysis and are related to the structure of the minerals. The various minerals mentioned have characteristically different Raman spectra.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".